Triptych decision-making behaviour in the social domain

-

 

 

Last updated February 10, 2024

Dutch version


Contents:

Research outline:

Analyses and publications conducted:


 

Empirical research (possibly partly quantitative, partly qualitative)

  • Triptych lens decision-making behaviour in the social domain, Dutch Participation Act, and related laws/regulations

Scope of research

  1. decision-making behaviour of local authorities such as the local municipality and water boards, and policy, facts and circumstances;
  2. decision-making behaviour highly educated experienced benefit claimant (as house owner), facts and circumstances;
  3. decision-making behaviour of the judiciary including the District Court (Rb), the Court of Appeal (Hof), the Dutch Supreme Court (HR), and specialized Courts of Appeal such as the Central Appeals Tribunal (CRvB), the Council of State (RvS), policy, facts and circumstances.

Possible supplementary questions for research
Below are some possible supplementary questions (not exhaustive) for the empirical research and its potential societal and/or legal implications.

Sub-question 1: analysis of judicial decision-making behaviour in Dutch Participation Act (DPA) cases regarding suitable reintegration course and amount of DPA social security benefits;

Sub-question 2: efficiency and effectiveness (implementation) DPA and related laws/regulations, including the Fraud Act (Fraudewet), Decree on Social Assistance to the Self-Employed (BBZ), Valuation of Immovable Property Act (WOZ), Social Support Act (WMO);

Sub-question 3: efficiency and effectiveness of municipal experiments and pilots with regard to the Participatiewet (Pw) benefits, including sample, control group, ethical accountability, municipal benefit policy versus government policy versus EU policy;

Sub-question 4: efficiency and effectiveness in processing relevant (personal) data and storing them in accordance with laws/regulations, the law of evidence by lower governments regarding benefits under the DPA (WWB/BBZ/Pw), Valuation of Immovable Property Act (WOZ);

Sub-question 5: the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making behaviour of a benefit claimant, and/or the legal protection of a benefit claimant who is a ‘layman’ without a specialized lawyer/lawyer, and/or is to a greater or lesser extent legally knowledgeable in an area of law other than social security law and related areas of law, versus the decision-making behaviour and legal protection by legal professionals in the (social) legal profession, and the adequacy of available legal instruments;

Sub-question 6: adapting and/or replacing decision-making behaviour with a computer program and/or decision-making (calculation) model and/or (self-learning, digital) algorithms like chatbots, for example, in cases of the (strictly) formal application of laws/regulations/policies, its desirability;

Sub-question 7: efficiency and effectiveness of alternative forms of decision-making such as alternative dispute resolution.

Research material, anonymized
For the research, primarily or exclusively digitally available written decisions/statements and/or written acts will be used. If these documents have not been publicly published by the relevant public institution, personal data and/or data that can be traced back to persons will be anonymized or redacted. This is only different if the relevant person has given written permission in advance for (partial) publications/reports of the research.

Recommendations, future developments
Upon completion of the study, recommendations can be made regarding points for improvement (implementation of DPA), such as the independence of W&I and JD, the roles of advisory and/or medical examiners, inadequate legal protection, rigid enforcement and interpretation of laws, and compliance with applicable ( European and international) law.
Additionally, future developments can be discussed, e.g. the automation of decisions by local authorities and judicial decisions, etc., using new or alternative digital observation techniques.

Sources, list of publications
Sources
See ‘Material research, anonymised’.
Relevant literature

List of publications
See a description of the completed research at <https://www.narcis.nl/research/RecordID/OND1299821/Language/en>
Calculating with case law. ‘A legal-quantitative study into WIPO domain name arbitration’
Digital Author ID: <info:eu-repo/dai/nl/298672030>
Orchid ID: <https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2360-9578>

Visser, J.A., (2009). Rekenen met rechtspraak. Een juridisch-kwantitatief onderzoek naar WIPO domeinnaamarbitrage. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2009. ISBN: 9789058504326

Visser, J.A. (2006). Jurimetrics, Safety and Security. International Review of Law, Computer & Technology, 20 (1&2), 10 pp., 123-133.

Visser, J.A., Van Noortwijk van, C. en De Mulder R.V. (2005). Re-usable Retrieval Concepts for the Classification of Legal Documents. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2005), Gardner et al., A. (Eds.), 2 pp., 252-253, The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM): New York, ISBN: 1-59593-081-7.

Visser, J.A. (2005). Jurimetrie en veiligheid. Rijzende sterren in het veiligheidsonderzoek, Blad, J.R. (Eds.), 13 pp., 95-107, Boom Juridische Uitgevers: Den Haag, ISBN: 90-5454-602-6.
Visser, J.A. (2001). De andere kant van ecologische schade. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Visser, J.A. (2001). Dystopische visioenen; Nanotechnologie in een risicomaatschappij. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Visser, J.A & Koppenol-Laforce, M.E. (1999). Ontwikkelingen in het conflictenrecht inzake onrechtmatige daad. Juridisch Up to Date (22), 19-26.

Reservation for changes, corrections, additions
The undersigned reserves the right to make changes, corrections, additions, etc. regarding the empirical research and/or its proposal as described in this document.

Intellectual property rights protection (pre-announcement) for empirical research
The pre-announcement (including the idea) of the empirical research and the research itself, its results, and publications/reports belong exclusively to Ms J.A. Visser, protected by intellectual property rights according to applicable European and international laws.
None of it (elements separately or in combination) may be reproduced or used for (journalistic and/or scientific) research in which Ms J.A. Visser is not actively involved without permission. In case of violation, a penalty of at least €25,000 per violation, per entity/person, is due, increased by statutory interest up to the actual moment of payment.

All rights reserved Ms J.A. Visser


J.A. Visser  

xxxx XXXXXXXX
xxxx
xxxx

Dutch Version 1.5 – April 22, 2022

(Dutch Version 1.0, November 20, 2020: see below)

Click here for pfd in Dutch

 

 

List of translated legal terms:
Dutch Participation Act (DPA) – Participatiewet (Pw)
Work and Social Assistance Act (WSAA) – Wet Werk en Bijstand (WWB)
Decree on Social Assistance to the Self-Employed (DSASE) – Bijstand voor zelfstandigen (BBZ)
Social Support Act (SSA) – Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning (Wmo)
Wet aanscherping handhaving en sanctiebeleid SZW-wetgeving (Fraudewet) – The Tightening of Enforcement and Sanctions Policy Social Affairs and Employment legislation (Fraude Act)

Valuation of Immovable Property Act (VIPA) – Wet Waardering Onroerende Zaken (WOZ)

Court (C) – Rechtbank (Rb)

Central Appeals Tribunal (CAT) – Centrale Raad van Beroep (CRvB)
Council of State (CoS) – Raad van State (RvS)
Gerechtshof (Hof) – Court of Appeal (CA)
Supreme Court (SC) – Hoge Raad (HR)

Recent relevant developments

Analogous: Victims of the childcare allowance scandal start their own investigation

Following the stagnation of a timely handling of the recovery operation for the childcare allowance scandal, some parents have given up the fight against the ‘unprecedented injustice’. Other parents have decided to conduct their own investigation, as this is not being done or can be done by the established academic order (without government subsidy). They believe that the government is not doing enough to solve their problems.

The biggest problem is the complete lack of access to information. They want to find out which (personal) data, in what way, at what time, for what reason, to which institutions, were processed, i.e. requested, recorded, shared and used in risk analyses for example. They also want to find out how parents came into view of youth care, and whether they too were stigmatised as fraudsters there.

With the investigation, they are taking control back into their own hands, as some victimised parents no longer see the point in participating.

@ recent relevant developments

See the article published on 14 April 2023 in the AD newspaper, ‘Victims of childcare allowance scandal launch their own investigation: how did they come to the attention of youth care?’, which states that victims of the childcare allowance scandal are launching their own investigation because they believe the government is not doing enough to solve their problems and the recovery operation has come to a standstill. The biggest problem is the complete lack of access to information. This is to find out which (personal) data, in what way, at what time, for what reason, to which institutions, were processed i.e. requested, recorded, shared and used in for example risk analyses. How did they also come into view of youth care, and were they too stigmatised there as fraudsters. With this investigation they are taking control back into their own hands now some victimised parents no longer want to participate. With web link: https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/toeslagenouders-starten-eigen-onderzoek-hoe-kwamen-ze-in-beeld-bij-jeugdzorg~affdc589/